ReviewJournal of ophthalmic & vision research
Review of Static Approaches to Surgical Correction of Presbyopia.
Review in Journal of ophthalmic & vision research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vehicle Headlight Halo Simulation of Presbyopia-Correcting Intraocular Lenses.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- PresbyLASIK: A review of PresbyMAX, Supracor, and laser blended vision: Principles, planning, and outcomes.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2020Review
- Review of current status of refractive lens exchange and role of dysfunctional lens index as its new indication.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2020Review
- A Novel Concept of Correcting Presbyopia: First Clinical Results with a Phakic Diffractive Intraocular Lens.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Article
- Erratum: Review of Static Approaches to Surgical Correction of Presbyopia.Journal of ophthalmic & vision researchArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Presbyopia is the primary cause of reduction in the quality of life of people in their 40s, due to dependence on spectacles. Therefore, presbyopia correction has become an evolving and rapidly progressive field in refractive surgery. There are two primary options for presbyopia correction: the dynamic approach uses the residual accommodative capacity of the eye, and the static approach attempts to enhance the depth of focus of the optical system. The dynamic approach attempts to reverse suspected pathophysiologic changes. Dynamic approaches such as accommodative intraocular lenses (IOLs), scleral expansion techniques, refilling, and photodisruption of the crystalline lens have attracted less clinical interest due to inconsistent results and the complexity of the techniques. We have reviewed the most popular static techniques in presbyopia surgery, including multifocal IOLs, PresbyLASIK, and corneal inlays, but we should emphasize that these techniques are very different from the physiologic status of an untouched eye. A systematic PubMed search for the keywords "presbylasik", "multifocal IOL", and "presbyopic corneal inlay" revealed 634 articles; 124 were controlled clinical trials, 95 were published in the previous 10 years, and 78 were English with available full text. We reviewed the abstracts and rejected the unrelated articles; other references were included as needed. This narrative review compares different treatments according to available information on the optical basis of each treatment modality, including the clinical outcomes such as near, intermediate, and far visual acuity, spectacles independence, quality of vision, and dysphotopic phenomena.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.